?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Andrey [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Andrey

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

(no subject) [Jul. 20th, 2018|03:19 am]
Andrey
Ok, I was super dumb, but I only now realized that you can write plain html in markdown. Sort of like:



It's far from ideal (html isn't good for long pieces of text), but I was under an impression that you can e.g. add classes to markdown only in certain dialects (or, rather, only using certain parsers).
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 19th, 2018|12:48 am]
Andrey


Yes, I am very much guilty of that. My job is a daily bucket of shame really.

And yet I do not learn. I would still prefer a solution with a great developer experience over one with a great user experience any day. Woe on me!
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 16th, 2018|01:43 am]
Andrey


"demonstrated exactly how intervention, rule-breaking, and destruction happen"? huh?

I didn't look up the explanation in New Yorker itself (because of paywall), but here‘s the next best thing I could find: https://uk.remonews.com/world-cup-2018-the-moral-clarity-of-pussy-riots-protest Which looks half-baked and unproofread (I would guess they have corrected at least some mistakes on New Yorker’s site). Apparently the extended version of the interpretation reads as follows:

"But the terrestrial policeman, who intervenes every day in the game and knows no rules, is destroying our world."
The four women, taking to the field, have shown exactly how this happens: the beautiful world of sport has its bubble punctured by people who run and agitate haphazardly, intent on destruction.


"exactly". A confused run in front of a frenzied crowd is, of course, an "exact demonstration".
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 15th, 2018|11:59 pm]
Andrey
Youtube suggested me this video about the late Ed Schultz. Some of it (particularly the part where he compares his work at MSNBC with his work at RT) is interesting.



I got curious about that footage of an interview with him (in the middle of the show) and searched Google for it. Apparently it comes from this podcast: https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-jamie-weinstein-show/episode-55-ed-shultz/ (starting from about 13 min.). Don’t know where they got the video from.

UPD.: Oh, found it:

linkpost comment

Recently watched films [Jul. 14th, 2018|06:12 pm]
Andrey
The Post — good
Darkest Hour — very good
Ready Player One — poor
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 14th, 2018|02:41 am]
Andrey
Ok, so now finally there is a document (an indictment against a dozen Russians) that tries to present concrete evidence about the Russian involvement in the US elections. There may be questions about how convincing they are, or about the soundness of the argument, or about validity of the premises, but at any rate these are specific facts that we can finally examine ourselves. Before we only had vague statements and various kinds of indignation, which shouldn’t have happened until at least this.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 12th, 2018|03:19 am]
Andrey
It seems one lasting casualty of our internet regulators’ fucking with Telegram, is GitBook, used by various open-source projects as a documentation tool. Client-side navigation on these docs sites is now completely screwed up. And since GitBook is too low-profile for anyone to actually care, I doubt an improvement can be expected soon.

(Also I suspect that after that mayhem the BBC sites started working much slower and less reliably in Russia. I am not 100% positive, but I believe they used to work much, much better before. Again, since no-one really cares (it’s not google search or youtube, after all), I am afraid that’s how the things will remain for a long while.)
link2 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Jul. 12th, 2018|01:12 am]
Andrey
I do not remember which photo made me remember a previous train of thought, but it had a sign with this message:



We are all immigrants, it says. It looks like a proposition in a syllogism, which, in its informal form, presumably goes something like this: since I am an immigrant, or some of my ancestors were immigrants, therefore what right do I have to oppose someone else becoming an immigrant too? Rather, I should welcome new immigrants.

This is a very shaky logic though (as pretty much all slogans have). Take a stupid thought experiment of a lifeboat that is leaving a sinking ship. There are only so many passengers that it can carry. All of its passengers are passengers. Yet, it does not follow that since all passengers are passengers they should allow other people (potential passengers) to board the boat ad infinitum (to also become passengers). At some point the boat will be filled to its capacity, so no-one else will be taken.

There are numerous less dramatic examples where this logic (you are X, therefore shame on you if you do not allow another to also become X) does not work. It must be obvious, mustn’t it? So why is this slogan so popular?
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 11th, 2018|03:13 am]
Andrey
For all the talk of Google watching our every single step, I got a notification from Google with the score of the match between Belgium and France; apparently, Google has no idea I don't give a rat's ass about football.
linkpost comment

Spelling [Jul. 8th, 2018|11:15 pm]
Andrey
Hmm, the infamous confusion of "affect" and "effect":

linkpost comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]